Williams: Constitutional rights have been grossly violated by government

Here’s a question I’ve asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer.

If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people’s lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no.

My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.

The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage in which one partner has an established pattern of ignoring and breaking the marital vows. Moreover, the offending partner has no intention to mend his ways. Of course, the marriage can remain intact while one party tries to impose his will on the other and engages in the deviousness of one-upsmanship and retaliation. Rather than domination or submission by one party, or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative.

Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.

These constitutional violations have increased independent of whether there’s been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a Republican-controlled Washington.

There is no evidence Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend.

Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to citizens about what type of health insurance they must purchase, how states and people may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush.

The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do just about anything for which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Our founder’s constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Americans have several options. We can, like sheep, submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution.

We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution.

A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution.

My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.

WALTER E. WILLIAMS is a professor of economics at George Mason University. His column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

of editorial space. If the Koch Industries sycophant wants to disband the union and expects creative destruction, he better be prepared to be disappointed.

This hysterical nonsense is an apocalyptic dog whistle just like "small government" is a dog whistle for more corporate control.

If you want to get down to it, this country was found on a constitutional violation. At almost every improvement there was a progressive, whether they be a Republican or Democrat. Too bad conservatives have no more progressives. Now they talk of secession, disbanding, and the apocalypse. They sound like bitter quitters.

Since 1985, George Mason University and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354.

"If the Koch Industries sycophant wants to disband the union and expects creative destruction, he better be prepared to be disappointed." NWL 0607

You make this statement even though he says at the end of the column:"My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation." if he finishes on that note, how can you justify saying he wants to disband the union? He likend the union to a marraige is all, and pointed out that in a marriage where things can not be fixed to either parties satisfaction they seperate and divorce, nowhere did he say that was his preffered answer.

""The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001." It was, and it was designed to protect the US public; strangely though you do not see the conection then as he points out about "the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush." all of which were brought in to protect the public, their rights and the environment, but you do not view those the same because they would be "progressive" ideas.

His statement about the constitution is correct, it mandates what and how taxes can be raised and what the monies can be used for, its there in black and white. The government "telling" the people what they can have and what they will buy is a violation of the constitution, as is seperating out who does and who does not have to comply with it, thats introducing two classes of citizens.

"Too bad conservatives have no more progressives." That would depend on how you now view the word "progressive".

To me, and to many others the term "progressive" now means "do as we say". You talk regularily about religion and how it cant be mixed with government and I agree. But for progressives, the "gay cause", the "gun cause", the "healthcare cause" and a myriad of other causes are almost becoming a religion, and this "religion" has no tollerance of other views, infact if your view is different from the "progressive" approach you will be vilified and hounded until you get on board.So there is an other right that is being eroded by the "progressive" mandates, the right to free speech and to an opinion.

I tend to agree with what Williams is saying, we have a constitution, we should live by it and not force beliefs and thoughts on others in the name of the "religion of progess". I am sure several of you would be up in arms if christianity was to become a recognised national religion, well look at your own "prgressive religious belief system" first before you jump on someone elses. What you are advocating for is not so different from that which you hold in disdain, one has just survived a lot longer and is based on choice, you do not have to agree with it, the other, well we know what happens to those who do not agree.

Who is forcing you to change your sexual orientation? Who is forcing you to think homosexual thoughts? Who is forcing you to give up your guns if you own them?

Who is forcing you to stop expressing your opinion?

That is such a false equivalency when you compare fighting against discrimination as forcing those beliefs on you or others. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex don't. But please stop with this charade that you are being forced to do anything. Who is preventing you from going to church and worshipping?

Just because your opinions and beliefs are not as popular as they once were, does not mean you can't have them.

On guns, that bastion of conservatism called Scalia has even said the second amendment should and can be regulated.

No one is forcing me to change anything about my sexual preferences or to think homosexual thoughts, i never said anyone was. What I said was that IF mine or someone elses thoughts are different from an others, and they do not tie in with what is considered progressive thought, then I, or anyone, can by pilloried and abused until we shut up or we appologise. I personally, have no problem with anyone marrying anyone, but because I do not necessarily agree with the whole homosexual lifestyle then I am wrong; I have never asked anyone to stop being who they are, I just do not need to know or hear about it, but I am given no choice because it is broadcast every where you look, they are even teaching it to children in school. That could be considered as indoctrination of thought at an early age. THAT is a degredation of someones rights to free speech and freedom of thought.

With regards a false equivelancy lets look at some arguments: On a national basis, how do you think a hetrosexual march down the main streets of San Fransisco would go down? would this not be considered homophobic and be banned? We have BET, which I like, but do you think we would be allowed to have WET? or Hetro tv as oppossed to GayTV? More locally, we have the GLTG clubs at tech, we have the muslim clubs, womens clubs etc. what happened a few years ago when they wanted to set up a male christian club, it was not allowed. In all of these cases, who is the descriminated against group?

My religion, and that of others, is often abused here, science has disproved the existence of a god, well not to me, I still beleive in god but I also accept science. In your case, you use factual interpretation of the bible, which I appreciate and often agree with, however, others decide anyone with a religious base to an argument is backward and intollerant of all. Is that not the same with progressive thought? If we do not agree we are all backward and intollerant, yet it is the "enlightened progressive" who is truthfully intollerant, "do as I say and think as I do, or we will hound you out" is the ultimate version of intollerance.

This column for example, rather than refute his argument or his basis for it, the progressives jump on his associations; it is not possible Williams is having a personal thought? or must it must be related to who pays his wages. He is entitled to, and probably gives, his own opinions; simply because they do not go along with a progressive idea then he is a "bought and paid for sycophant", simply regurgitating what his "owners" want to see. Can you prove that, can you state catergorically that he is repeating their words, can you find fault in his argument or is the only fall back who his employers are?

No, would be the assumed answer on my part, because I agree with his constitutional argument, we are being told what to buy, where to go , how to do things, what we will pay for, how to think even, none of which are constitutional rights of federal governments. This is not just a Democrat thing it has also been done by Republicans, but it is not actually allowed by the constitution. I would rather then people showed where he is wrong rather than just abuse who employs him and as such abuse him for non thinking journalism.

My argument about religion is simple; All of the traits that "progressives" attach to religious belief and dogma, actually exisit in the progresssive belief and dogma, but the progressives themselves do not see it. They are so caught up in support of their own intollerance and self rightiousness being the only way, that they turn a blind eye to the failings and associate it only with all others who do not think the same. That sounds very much to me like the arguments used regularily here against other religions. "Look to your own characters before you abuse anothers."

On the guns argument, my personal belief has never changed, a gun has never killed anyone, the person holding the gun does the killing, as such background checks should be required to check mental stability. The real problem is that mental instability can happen to anyone in an instant, no one knows the cause, so apart from initial screening it should be carried out again at regular intervals.

I still don't understand what you are so threatened by. You clearly have expressed you opinion. Many may and have disagreed with you. I don't know how that is can be considered censorship.

Please explain to me how learning about gender and sexual orientation as it applies to science becomes an indoctination process? There is no need to feel threatened by knowledge or to be paranoid about it. Where is the indoctrination process? Or is this just an exaggeration?

In regards to parades and clubs, these groups represent minorities and minority view points. If you want to start a white male christian club, you are free to do that. I am pretty sure those already exist.

Williams' whole spiel is one of a strict constitutionalist federalist in most cases. The constitution is a "living breathing document" subject to change. That ship has already sailed.

I don't understand how you've come to say what you have about progessivism being a religion since there are conservatives that agree with marriage equality and anthropogenic global warming.

Don't know what to say. You certainly have a right to your opinion and to read and watch what you would like to. I don't see anyone stopping you or forcing you to believe a certain way. I see that you are able to leave your comments on Lubbock Online.

Who is keeping you from believing what you want in terms of religion? Who is forcing beliefs on you? You have made these claims in your first comment.

"Americans have several options. We can, like sheep, submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution...... We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. ......A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. .......My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation."

Where does he adovocate conflict and bloodshed? He gives four options there, and his prefferred one is a restoration of the constitutional values. He even states in his opinion, a peacable seperation is preferrable. That is not, in my opinion, promoting anything that resembles conflict and bloodshed. The premis of the constitution was that the States, NOT the federal government maintained control, that is where his argment lies, in that the federal government has over stepped its rights at the expense of the rights of the states and the citizens.

As a non Christian who can read, I present scripture online when confronted by narrow, incomplete fundamentalists. I don't see this happening on a broader scale.

I merely present it to allow fundamentalists to see another biblical perspective. It doesn't matter so much to me or many others about the religion equation. We don't live in a Theocracy. One version of religion doesn't trump another. That to me is why the framers were so brilliant in forming a secular nation.

I feel like you think my scripture interpretations are used in marriage equality. I have not heard of it outside of what I have offered here. I just think it is fair that different perspectives on scipture are allowed online since they are so often used to justify feelings on the lgbt community.

Again, it doesn't matter what you believe about scriptures. We don't live in a theocracy and the constitution doesn't define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Although, conservatives have tried to do that with the Defense of Marriage Act, which has been ruled unconstitutional.

No, as I said before, I like your interpretations, they are thought provoking and give for most a different perspective on the scriptures. When I was refering to the abuse, it was not about your interpretations. Its the constant idea that if someone believes an interpretation that is not a progressive approach then they are ridiculed and considered backwards by many on here.

I actually believe in DOMA, but my perspective is different from most who would defend it, I think DOMA should apply equally to ALL marriages, hetrosexual, homosexual makes no difference, a marriage is a marraige and all should be viewed the same, as you point out, it is a legal contract.

My points previous are not in favor or against anything except that in voicing an opinion, Williams was attacked, not because of his opinion, but was attacked because he does not fall in with progressive thought. No where did anyone argue his points, but instead they riduculed him as a sycophant, controlled by his bosses thoughts and now as an old coot, trying to promote war conflict and blood shed. I read the same column, I do not see him promoting anything, he gave 4 solutions/scenarios, his end thought was in peaceful promotion and resurection of the constitution. Otimio came in almost on cue, he does not agree with current dogma and thought so he is old, crazy, promoting killing and break up of the country, simply because he gives a different view.

From my perspective therefore, it is a case of his views are different from progressive dogma, so never mind refuting his arguments, he must be attacked, vilified and abused until he either tows the line or disappears.

The one thing I have noticed though, and I could be wrong, is that he has not been accused of being an angry white war mongerring, homophobic, sexist, GOTP/ERR, so I am guessing he is not white and as such that topic has to be kept away from as an accusatory approach as, progressivly speaking, that cant be used. So we should be grateful that his color is being tollerated, even if his arguments are not.

I can only speak for my comments. I did attack his argument. His argument is always the same. It is for smaller government. I mention that in my first comment. Maybe you missed it.

I also address his hypothetical when I say "IF" Williams'........

The dog whistles of disunion and secession play well to certain types for a reason. His political philosophy is federalism and libertarianism. The people who write his checks recieve a lot of money from those that benefit from these philosophies in the most unethical dishonest way.

States' right folks have used states' rights to discriminate and use black people as farm implements and so forth tend to be federalists. Not all federalists are bigots or racists. I am aware of that.

Libertarian billionaires who benefit from government policies when they send thier employees to social safety net to make up for unlivable wages, then turn around and ask for corporate welfare are not who they claim to be. They are greedy dishonest profiteers. Not all libertarians are unethical hypocrites, however, the Koch Brothers are.

Whatever or which ever philosophy one believes in of the aforementioned, it has got to be helpful, (since you mentioned Williams' race) to have an extreme outlier in the African American community advocate for policies that hurt minorities and the poor alike.

Your stance on Doma is a bit spurious since the goal of DOMA was to prevent same sex marriage. If the originally intent had been to protect all marriages it would have been redundant.

I still don't see anywhere where kids are being indoctinated to be gay? Those are you words. You also have not shown how anyone is forcing you to think or believe a certain way.

I don't know what you are trying to say.

When you say parades, there are many straight christians who march with their gay relatives and friends in gay parades. Gay parades are not exclusive. They tend to be a celebration of solidarity and support.

I do appreciate your answers, and I do read them. My point is, and has been since the begining of this, is show me where is argument is spurious, and give me reasoning for the attackes on his character.

I am told here regularily I do not understand American politics, or I do not understand the slavery issues, etc. What I am saying here and now is, I have read the constitution, apart from the fact I think it is a fantastic document, I had to read it for my citizenship. I see no comment he made that does not reflect my understanding of what the constitution says and his interpretation of it. Show me, where he is wrong, do not tell me who his employer is, I do not care what color he is, tell me where the constitution does not defend small government, tell my why I should just accept the government making my decisions on where i earn my money, and how I spend it, and show me where in the constitution it says I have to accept progressive ideology or risk my livelyhood.

To me, those are intelligent arguments, based on facts and or personal interpretation and beliefs. To decry someone simply because you do not like his politics, his employer or his point of view is, not only childish but non productive. You can not sway an argument or change a perspective by being a bully and decrying a different opinion, you have to convince people of the difference.

With regards to indoctrination of children, school is there to teach children to read, write and do maths primarily, and yes it is there to also teach tolerance and accpetance, but it should not be used to force acceptance and to define what is acceptable from a sexual perspective. To me, that is a parents job, not a teachers, and should be saved for an appropriate age group. By teaching small children about sexual preferences at an early age, then, in my opinion, you are indoctrinating them, regardless of their parents beliefs or values, and that is wrong. But as I say, that is my own opinion.

ordinally agree for referring to Walter Williams as an Uncle Tom....I still believe he is........my definition of and Uncle Tom is...A black man who will do anything to stay in good standing with "the white man" (in this case the Koch Bros.) including betray his own people.

I think this perfectly typifies Walter Williams......not meant to be a racial slur......but according to the widely accepted definintion of the term...what other term is appropriate?.....

I didn't say his argument is spurious, I said your stance on DOMA was spurious because the original intent of DOMA was to prevent same sex marriages.

Scotland, Williams' entire argument is based on the theory that all of the amendments and acts of law he disagrees with that have been passed over time are violations. Essentially, that is his argument.

I don't know how I could be any more clear than my first comment. His argument against the programs that have become LAW CONSTITUTIONALLY is that they violate the constitution. THEY DONT.

I go further when I point out that his "small government" argument is a dog whistle for more corporate control, which is exaclty what the Koch Brothers, Walton Family, have lobbied for with citizens united.

No Scotland, school is there for learning period. It does not matter the subject. Science breakthroughs and history have made it necessary to change curricula over time. The way subjects are taught has changed as technology as changed.

If you feel that when a child learns about sexual orientation, the gender spectrum between the x and y chromosome is indoctrination, then I am sorry. You could always home school. I didn't realize tolerance was such a problem for you. You seem not to want to tolerate science.

Are you homophobic? I ask out of respect, because you feel that when a kid is exposed to biological science FACTS about sexual orientation and gender, it constitutes indocrination. It doesn't. You can teach your child to be intolerant or not to be accepting of people's sexual orientation at home. I don't see how educating people is the equivalent of indoctrination. That just seems like an overreaction. Do you want to get rid of biology all together?

Again, I made my point about the federalists and libertarian groups that support Williams and his ilk. I don't think I could have been more clear.

What about "a man doing his job whom I do not agree with, and here is why I do not agree............................" then you simply fill in the blanks.

Personally speaking, I find the whole "Uncle Tom" thing as racist and ignorant as the N word usage. Effectively, by using it are you not calling him a slave? so is it not exactly the same thing as the N word? I am not picking on you about it rettch, it is what some see as acceptable and others do not, but for me that is an incredibly derogatory comment, and I think no one should use it, regardless of color or race, and I do not know what it could even be based on to call someone that.

For me, what you and we have just done is create a discussion, based on differing opinions; you gave your reason for using it, I gave you my reason for not liking it, I also told you how I would view the statement. You now have the opertunity to respond. I did not denegrade you, I did not tell you you were wrong necessarily, I simply gave you my opinion.

That is what I found offensive about the first set of comments about the article, the writer was judged on his associations, not on the content of his argument, but simply because people do not like his employer; as such he is considered devoid of original thought or self determination of an idea, the content of the piece then became of no importance, his associations took over the argument, nullifying his opinion. Would that not then be censorship based on association?

The Koch brothers, major funders of right-wing, libertarian causes, have built a sprawling, complex network that raised $407M for the 2012 elections, all without having to disclose who the donors are. According to an analysis by the Washington Post’s Matea Gold and the Center for Responsive Politics, the Koch-backed network raised at least $407 million, which was mostly spent on voter mobilization and television ads against President Obama and the Democratic Party.

“It is a very sophisticated and complicated structure,” Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a University of Notre Dame professor who tracks the tax-structure of political nonprofits, explained to the Washington Post. “It’s designed to make it opaque as to where the money is coming from and where the money is going. No layperson thought this up. It would only be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch brothers are, because this was not cheap.”

Charles and David Koch provided money to their own network, though it’s unclear exactly how much. They also organized like-minded donors to be a part of their network that provides funding to conservative groups.

The Post reports that the network’s money made its way to two nonprofit groups that effectively served as the “banks” which provided cash to other groups. One key player in the network is Americans for Prosperity, which spent millions of dollars trying to defeat Obama in the 2012 elections.

Which Constitution does Mr. Williams want to return to? The original one that allowed for slavery, and the relegation of women and minorities to lower societal positions? Would he like to return to a time when there was no right to collect income taxes? Might be nice until you try to go 70 down a dirt road or fight to get phone service delivered to a place not deemed profitable to a private phone company. One thing about our society that hasn't changed is the struggle for power. I would personally rather power be in the hands of the people who have at least some say in the government rather than in the hands of a chosen few wealthy oligarchs. I see how our corporations track us, refuse to allow employees certain rights or force them to sign over other rights, and look for cheap labor overseas because we request a certain standard of living. That's a short list of what they want to do or are doing. The only remedy for those grievances is a government run by its citizens. The only faction who has ever argued for limited government is also the faction that wants to impose their will on the people without a chance for redress.

I live and work in a science environment, my job changes daily due to advancements; prior to this I lived and worked in the nuclear industry, another constant changing scientific community, so no, I am not closed to science, I am not closed to scientific teaching or advancement of theories, I actually depend on these changes to improve what I do and to help with my function. I am sorry that you felt my statement about reading, writing, and math were so exclusive that only those should be taught, but I was trying to be age relevant, the inability to read/write/or to count makes the teaching of sciences a dificult proposition.

Biology and the theory of evolution should be taught together, at an appropriate time chronologically and measurable mental capacity speaking, that is also my opinion on sex education. As a child, and by that i mean a small child, why do we need to define gender beyond male and female? Why should we be teaching about x or y , or XX/YY intersex theory to children?

I am not homophobic in any way, something I would have considered obvious by my approach to the topic, but no matter.

Again, I see no reason to teach children, and again by children i mean small children, gender types beyond male and female. Why are we so intent in taking away their childhood and labeling everything, the only difference a small child needs to know, in my opinion, is male or female. They should not be questioning "johnies two daddies, or Sarahs two mommies", they should only be interested in making friends and learning. But the wise powers that be have made the decision that we, who are all so wise, know better and the only way to stop discrimination based on gender is to force the differences onto our children, because by pointing out a difference that they probably do not even notice, is a sure fire way to make that difference disappear.

No I am definately not becoming PC. I simply think the term you were using is offensive, and that definition of its meaning is my understanding, but am I becoming PC no.

I prefer to think for myself and not be told what is correct in that respect.

So Williams is betraying his "own people" by having an opinion? Interesting, I thought he was an American, and as such his opinion would be the same as many others. But I am guessing you are refering to his color, and using race, or in this case what you perceive as his lack of race bias, to justify your hatered of him.

Where do you feel that school kids being taught about sexual orientation or the biological spectrum between the x and Y chromosome are too young?

Maybe you have a link.

Anyway, I hope you can see how relevant my first comment was to Williams' peice. It seems straight, no pun intended, to me. ;)

I prefer the term sycophant over others because Williams has made a career out of cajoling racist and supporting policies that hurt most people that look like him. I will not use the other terms offered up here. Although, I understand why someone might use them, they are off limits in my family.

Given my political leanings and my general opinion of what is considered "progressive" agendas, I wonder that had I said something similar to rettch's comment about a black writter supporting the political establishment, which remains predominantly a white controlled area of life, would I have been lambasted as an angry old white racist? I am thinking yes!

For me NWL that age would be 10/11 when puberty generally starts and the topic and the questions become relevant to the child who is trying to self identify. That, in my opinion, is the point when we should be teaching sex education and diversity in gender. When the relevance and the need to understand what is happening, and not to be judgmental or discriminatory is needed. I think that, at that point in life, when you yourself are changing physically/mentally and emotionally, you are more open and ready to accept differences in others. What age would you see as appropriate and relevant to mental and physical needs?

Scotland, I have made it clear to Rettch about how I feel about the word. And given your political leanings for, and we've been over this, supporting the right to discriminate even as one suffers the legal and social consequences, I think I would need to know the context in which you used the "word", hypothetically.

Regarding sexual education, I believe like many professionals do that starting in early childhood is much better than waiting until their bodies and minds start to psysiologically mature to be interested in sex.

Most of the empirical research suggest just that. So I would start much earlier than 10 or 11. Age appropriate sex education is an incremental process.

Edited. Texas has some of the highest rates of teen birth rates, Lubbock has some of the highest in the state.

Califoria has taken a much different approach and have gotten much better results.

no Williams is betraying his "own people" by being bought and paid for by the Koch bros...

follow the dinero!!!!!!!

Since 1985, George Mason University and its associated institutes and centers, has received more funding from the Koch Family Charitable Foundations than any other organization--a total of $29,604,354.

You still assume that his opinions are dictated solely by his employer, because you dislike his employer you therefore assume his approach and argument can only be wrong, no dicussion, no attempt to refute his charges or his argument, he has to be wrong by association. If everyone applied that logic, then where would that place the president with regards his associations? but when anyone dared to use that argument it was racist and held no validity or value.

You also have decided that because I do not agree with your perspective I have to be wrong also. As I have said before, the progressive drive for" tolerance" of different livestyles/views/opinions only applies when it is everyone else who must be tolerant and not they themselves. How very "progressive" of you rettch, everyone is entitled to voice an opinion, as long as it is the same as yours!

The Democratic is a very accepting inclusive party. Since progessives embrace religion, non theists, gay, straight, black, white, hispanics, asians.........what lifestyles are we not tolerant of?? What people are we not tolerant of?

Before you answer that question, keep in mind that being tolerant does not entail with putting up with discrimination.

Given that there are white straight christian progressives, are you suggesting that we are not tolerant of white heterosexual christians?

I know non white, gay.lesbian, female, old, young, male Republican voters, yes its true they exist! What I am saying, not suggesting, is that the so called "party of tolerance and equality" is actually anything but tolerant of any view except their own under this guise of progressiveness.

It is hypocrytical to claim "everyone" has to be tolerant of everyone and every thing, whilst at the same time showing no tolerance for anyone who would dare to disagree with the doctrine you espouse. Far from tolerance, you will infact accuse, abuse and ridicule those different thinkers, forcing capitulation or destroying them; no attempt need be made at understanding or persuading, just call them names, and any name, it is justifed, till they see the error of their ways and tow the line.

It appears being tolerant of others is only a requirment if you are a "non-progressive". But no doubt "progressives" are all so amazingly enlightened that it is not necessary for those who follow the dogma.

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." Groucho Marx

sexual and gender identity starts to develop in utero, and has to do with both chromosomal, genetic, and environmental factors.

XX/XY are the "norms" for sexual and gender identity, but even within an XX or XY group, there is a huge amount of variation (CAH). Then we can throw in the individuals with X0, XYY, XXY, etc. As far as I know, there are no YO individuals because that chromosomal abnormality is non-viable

Upon birth, environmental factors multiply. People treat baby boys differently than baby girls. Girls get cuddled, are described as tiny, petite, princesses, lots of eye contact, etc. Boys get thrown in the air, and start learning how to rough house.

The problem comes from the fact that we treat boys like we think we need to treat boys, and girls like we thing we need to treat girls, regardless of how they may desire to be treated.

Young children tend to be pretty unrealistic in their thought processes, but studies have shown that they are a lot more intelligent than we adults tend to give them credit for.

Piaget believed that children could not understand concrete, "this is what I have experienced" cognition before about age 6 or 7, but how we present the information seems to have a lot to do with how children understand what we are trying to teach them.

I don't think that teaching young children that there are variations in being a boy or a girl is a bad thing.

Sexuality and gender identity are complicated topics. I don't think that dissemination of age appropriate sex ed has been emphasized enough. Part of that education should include the message that, "just because you don't fit into boy or girl" doesn't make you a bad person.